Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the Frauenkirche Dresden - Dr Mohamed ElBaradei - 18/03/2014


They are builders of peace: Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Thus, the rebuilt Frauenkirche in Dresden invites them to share their experiences working towards world peace taking part in a lecture series. In 2014, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr Mohamed ElBaradei presented his ideas on the question "What must we do today to make the world more peaceful in twenty years’ time?" This publication records the speech and other accompanying events such as a schools competition.


Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

in the Frauenkirche Dresden

Dr Mohamed ElBaradei

18 March 2014

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

in the Frauenkirche Dresden

18 March 2014




05 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in the Frauenkirche

Reverend Sebastian Feydt

06 Welcome address

Bishop Jochen Bohl of the Saxon Regional Lutheran Church

07 Opening

Saxon premier Stanislaw Tillich

08 Lecture by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate: “Durable peace is not just wishful thinking”

Dr Mohamed ElBaradei

22 Schools competition

Reverend Holger Treutmann

24 The winning entries for the schools competition

27 Young people experience the Frauenkirche

Dr Anja Häse

28 Impressions of the young people

30 Additional incentives to the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's lecture

Secretary of State David Gill

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger

Prof Dr Volker Perthes

37 Dr Mohamed ElBaradei – Biography

38 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 2014 – 1970



Nobel Peace Prize

Laureates in the


They are builders of peace. Often also the driving force behind

peace. Sometimes, with their commitment to peace, they

are far ahead of their time and only count among those who

have shaped history much later. Because they do not give up

in their efforts to give the world a more peaceful face and

to awaken hope wherever peoples do not live in peace with

one another. There, committed men and women are always

needed to take action and promote understanding among

the nations. They are the ones for whom Alfred Nobel once

dreamt up a prize. The ones who play a key, lasting role in

encouraging the peoples of this world to understand one

another, and who promote peace forums, are to be honoured

with the Nobel Peace Prize. You could almost think that the

founding mothers and fathers behind the reconstruction of

Dresden's Frauenkirche had that noble aim in mind when, in

1994, shortly after the Peaceful Revolution and the fall of the

Berlin Wall, they wrote in the Charter of Dresden's Frauenkirche

Foundation: “The reconstruction of the Frauenkirche is to

create a symbol calling for tolerance and peace between the

peoples and religions, (…) a place where symposia, lectures

can be held …” Thus, what could be more natural than to

invite Nobel Peace Prize Laureates to the Frauenkirche to share

their experiences working towards world peace Inspired

by the speech by the former Finnish prime minister, Martti

Ahtisaari, in December 2010 in the Frauenkirche, the Dresden

Frauenkirche Foundation set up a series of events involving

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. In 2014 the former head of the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr Mohamed

ElBaradei, was invited to one such event. Alongside his public

speech in the Frauenkirche and an evening meal with guests of

honour and experts, particular emphasis was laid on meeting

the next generation. This involved the winners of a schools

competition run jointly with the Free State of Saxony being

given the opportunity to discuss their ideas and reflections

on the subject of nuclear weapons in detail during a private

meeting with Dr ElBaradei and Minister President Tillich.

It is a pleasure and important for Dresden's Frauenkirche

Foundation to use this publication to record how the Nobel

Peace Prize Laureate, key guests and the young people who

took part answered the central question in this series of events:

What must we do today

to make the world more peaceful in twenty years’ time

Sebastian Feydt

Reverend of the Frauenkirche


Welcome address

Dr ElBaradei, Prime Minister Tillich, Dr Rößler, Ms Munz,

Mr Gill, Mayor Orosz, children, ladies and gentlemen,

This church is linked to the memory of the events that took

place on the 13th of February 1945, when Dresden was literally

obliterated by an aerial bombardment. In the 1980s, the ruins

of the Frauenkirche themselves became a memorial for peace.

Young people, especially, drew inspiration from this place to

voice their opposition to nuclear armament and the nuclear

arms race. Here they prayed for peace. It was a ‘conventional’

war that laid the city to waste, but in the day and age of

nuclear arms, we all know that things are conceivable and

possible on a much grander scale in terms of destruction.

Dr ElBaradei, this brief introduction offers an insight into how

important your activity as Director General of the International

Atomic Energy Agency has been for peace in the world.

With the help of inspections, amongst other things, the IAEA,

in accordance with its mission statement, has to prevent nu -

clear materials from being used contrary to international law for

military means and purposes. During the years of your tenure

at the head of this organization you have made a significant

contribution to avoiding a possible nuclear clash. In certain

situations you have also tried to maintain peace directly.

I would like to remind everyone at this point that it was you

who, in spring 2003, publically doubted the existence of

weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: in doing so you rightly

contradicted the argument that was to lend legitimacy to the

intended war.

In recent times you have committed to further democracy and

justice in your home country, in Egypt. And you have tried to

bring about reconciliation between the different parties. You

personally did not eschew risks, because you did not want to

stand up for a policy that denied the principle of reconciliation,

and it speaks to your integrity that you sent out a very clear

message by resigning from your post as vice-president.

For all of these aforementioned reasons and as chairman of

the Board of Trustees of the foundation for the Church of

Our Lady, I am very grateful to welcome you here. Your lifetime

achievement represents the call to peace, a call to which

the Frauenkirche Dresden is also so strongly committed.

We are absolutely delighted that you have come and taken up

the invitation to deliver the second Nobel Peace Prize speech

here at this very place, after Martti Ahtisaari.

Jochen Bohl

Bishop of the Saxon regional Lutheran church

Chairman of the

Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation Board of Trustees



“Anyone who has no fear has no imagination.” The man who

said that was from Dresden: Erich Kästner. Following Kästner's

line of thinking, it could be said that our guest today has

made it his life's task to govern the space between “fear” and

“imagination”. Nuclear crises and incidents have always shown

how serious and how real the risk is. The Cold War could just

as easily have become a “Hot War”. During the Cold War, the

world teetered several times on the brink of an atomic abyss.

That was made clear again once more last year, when Stanislav

Petrov was awarded the Dresden Prize. He was the man who,

in 1983, working as a lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Air

Defence Forces, decided that a US “attack” reported by the

warning system was a false alarm, preventing a nuclear war.

Dear Dr EIBaradei, as Director of the International Atomic

Energy Agency, you persistently warned of the dangers

and made repeated calls for action. You were the “face” of

the IAEA. Your efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being

misused for military purposes were rewarded with the Nobel

Peace Prize.

It was often not known how close the nuclear threat came.

That was the experience of those living around the Taucher

Forest near Bautzen. It was clear that the Soviet forces were

marshalling their resources: in 1982 the woods near Uhyst am

Taucher were closed off. In 1983 the Bischofswerda barracks

were extended, and in April 1984 troops and materials were

brought in during the night. Afterwards, the Taucher Forest

was sealed off. But it was only four years later that it became

clear what was hidden in the woods. On 25 February 1988, a

missile unit, whose arrival and existence had been known to

but a few, was withdrawn via Bischofswerda. It was only upon

its withdrawal that people realised the Taucher Forest had

been one of the “hot spots in the Cold War”. The Soviet Type

55-12 intermediate-range missiles based there were armed

with nuclear warheads – each with the explosive force of

25 Hiroshima bombs.

I tell you this story because it helps grasp the destructive

power of nuclear weapons and the threat they pose. Because

it illustrates why nuclear disarmament is important. And

because it demonstrates how precious peace in Europe is.

Sadly, nuclear weapons are still a real threat all over the world.

It is still up to us all to change that. But we are all well aware

that just because something needs doing, this does not in any

way mean it will be done. That takes far-sightedness, courage

and adamance.

Stanislaw Tillich

Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony



“Durable peace is not just

wishful thinking”

Lecture given by

Dr Mohamed ElBaradei

2005 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate,

former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

in the lecture series

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's Lectures in the Frauenkirche Dresden

This is the audio transcript of the speech presented.


It is a great honor for me to take part in this lecture series in the

Frauenkirche, which has become a widely recognized symbol

of peace and reconciliation. The fact that I stand before you

as an Arab Muslim in a German Lutheran cathedral discussing

ways of moving toward global peace, speaks volumes about

our common destiny and shared humanity.

and regional wars continue around the globe. We developed

a so-called ”international humanitarian law” governing armed

conflict, so we can kill each other more humanly, so to speak,

sparing civilians and improving the treatment of prisoners;

but even that humanitarian law is now cited more because of

violations than adherence to it.

Three days ago we passed the 3-year point of the civil war

in Syria: a senseless, destructive, dehumanizing conflict. More

than 130,000 men, women and children have lost their lives.

More than 2 million refugees have fled their homeland.

What has become of our sense of humanity After thousands

of years of civilization, have we learned nothing about the

peaceful settlement of these disputes Are we condemned to

repeat the cycle of violence forever

Three weeks ago, the Russian Parliament authorized the

deployment of troops to Ukraine in what could by default

turn into a major confrontation. This is still very much work

in progress. For the past three years in Egypt, our struggle

toward genuine democracy has been sidetracked repeatedly

by violent repression. Even as we gather today, armed conflicts

are taking their toll in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Africa

Republic, South Sudan, and many other countries.

Our evolution as a species – In terms of both caring for our

fellow humans and settling our differences in a peaceful

manner – seems to have made little progress since the

beginning of recorded history. Wars dominate the human

time line: Greek Wars, Roman Wars, the Mongol Conquest,

the Crusades, civil wars, the Napoleonic Wars, World Wars,

with hundreds of millions who have lost their lives to violence.

Today we can barely remember the causes of many of these

wars. Many of the countries involved no longer exist.

Empires and dynasties have arisen, each overthrowing the

last in bloodshed. We signed the Peace of Westphalia and

the Congress of Vienna, to recognize a sovereignty of the

individual state and set up rules for international conduct; but

the fighting continued. We created the League of Nations;

but it could not avert World War II. We established the United

Nations; yet a nuclear holocaust still hangs over our heads,

Despite the litany of violence and conflict I have just recited,

my answer is a resolute, ”No. We are not condemned.”

Humans are not fatally flawed. I refuse to believe that, we are

not born to hate. The arts of war are learned behaviors. We

are equally capable of learning – and teaching to our children

the arts of peace. As Albert Camus once said: ”Peace is the

only battle worth fighting.”

It is based on this premise that I've entitled my talk today

“Durable peace is not just wishful thinking.” The question

I put you is: What can be accomplished in ten years I was

asked about twenty, but I'll even talk about ten years. If a

decade seems like a short time, consider a few standout

events of the past ten years. The launch and expansion of the

European Union by thirteen countries. The launch of Facebook

and Twitter and YouTube – as well as the first iPhone. The

inauguration of the Large Hadron Collider and a few years

later the discovery of the HiggsBoson particle. The world's first

artificial organ transplant. WikiLeaks. Occupy Wall Street. The

groundswell of pro-democracy movement in Arab countries

across the Middle East and North Africa.

Many of these events we could not have predicted. Ten years

ago, if you would have told me about the dramatic changes we

would witness in the Arab society, I would have been sceptical

that it could happen in my lifetime. The lesson is clear: Never


underestimate the power of the human spirit. With the right

mind-set and strategy we are capable of magnificent action

– and astonishing progress. At the current pace of change, a

decade is a long time. So when I considered what we could

achieve in ten years, I was full of hope. I've translated that

hope in ten steps – realistic, practical measures in my view that

will transform our society and our outlook for the future. The

first five call for change in our understanding and mind-set,

the last five constitute a plan of action.

Step 1:

We must understand the duality of human nature:

common values diverted on perspectives.

The British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes articulated

this duality four centuries ago in a word called “De Cive,

On The Citizen”. Hobbes observed that people of diverse

backgrounds – different economic classes, different political

and religious persuasions – find it easy to agree when

describing the ideal FUTURE. They all hope for a future of

peace, justice and freedom for coming generations. Likewise,

they are in agreement on the behaviors and conditions that

would characterize that future and make it possible: virtues

such as honesty, tolerance, generosity and respect for human


common view is that the solution to such conflicts lies in the

discovery of common values. I disagree. Across a richly diverse

texture that makes up the human family, we already share

a body of core values that transcend all religions and belief


The problem lies in human subjectivity: sharply different

perceptions of past events that have led to grievances and

different perceptions of the current “reality”. Jews and Arabs

in Palestine are not fighting because their core values are

different. They fight because each read the history of the

region through a different lens: each believes the land belongs

to their people.

The solution, therefore, is to create an environment for

dialogue that will account for these subjective views while

shifting the emphasis toward a shared vision of a peaceful

future, thus bringing out the best in each participant. Whether

at the national or the international level this requires the

development of an institution and processes that are rooted

in human solidarity, designed to achieve equitable resolution

to grievances and differences of views, to ensure equal

opportunity for economic and political participation by all

parties, and to employ checks and balances, to guard against

aberration, manipulation, or domination by any one party. I

will speak more about the institution and processes a bit later.

Yet Hobbes also observed that when acting in the PRESENT,

these same people make excuses as to why they are compelled

to exhibit the opposite behavior: fierce competition, deception,

exploitation and even violence. These behaviors driven by

greed, fear and other human passions lead to a destructive

cycle of revenge, repression, civil strife and the loss of human


This human disparity between forward-looking positive values

and current negative behaviors is of direct relevance to the

peaceful resolution of conflicts – including longstanding

tensions such as Israeli-Palestinian situation, for example. A



Step 2:

We must acknowledge how globalization

has changed the equation.

Thomas Hobbes used his observations to argue for the

importance of sound governance at the level of city-state.

But during the intervening centuries, the scope of the playing

field has changed dramatically. Globalization – the rapid

movement of goods, services, information, finance and people

across national and continental boundaries – has redefined

human interaction. We are all connected, more literally than

ever before. The City is now the Planet.

What does this mean in practical terms First, the advancement

of civilization is no longer a zero sum game, in which one

country or group can gain security or resources by exploiting

another. Creating adverse conditions for a given country or

group, whether motivated by greed or ideology, will have

a rebound effect. For example, by subjecting one segment

of society to poverty or repression of human rights, the

circumstances would produce extremism or disease in a way,

that inevitably ripple back to threaten the oppressors. I am not

asking you to believe in karma. I am saying we have become

irreversibly interconnected as a global society.

Second, when we consider our most significant global

challenges – terrorism, climate change, poverty, the scarcity of

resources or weapons of mass-destruction – we see that they

are all threats without borders. Traditional notions of national

security are becoming obsolete. By their nature, these threats

require multinational and often global cooperation. National

decisions must of course be taken, but one measure of the

merit of national action must now be its global impact. No

government or limited alliance can overcome these threats by

working alone.

This changing understanding must lead to a change in mindset.

If it is inevitable that we become a globalized society,

reason compels a corresponding adjustment: the core

values we share must be applied across the entire society.

Our traditional family is now the human family. As with any

family, the human family should expect disagreements and

competing interest: but our response to dispute can no longer

resort to armed conflict or the deprivation of human dignity.

This is not a matter of choice; it is only a logical outcome.

For centuries we have regarded the alternative for conflict

resolution as a question of ethics; it is now a practical solution

of global survival. I am not secure until everyone in my family

is secure. I am not free, unless everybody is free.

Step 3:

We must understand the impact of extreme

inequality of wealth.

The unequal distribution of global wealth has reached obscene

proportions. Last October, Credit Suisse Research Institute

issued a report stating that more than 40 per cent of global

wealth is held by less than 1 per cent of the world population.

Roughly 2.8 billion people, nearly half of our fellow human

beings, survive on less than $2 per day. A January 2014 a report

from Oxfam International put the contrast in stark terms: the

richest 85 individuals on the planet have the same amount of

wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion.

Too often these statistics seem to go in one ear and out of the

other, but they are not merely numbers: there is a human face,

a career, a set of aspirations that goes with each life that makes

up these sterile statistics. As the Nobel Prize winning economist

Amartya Sen points out, inequality impacts the capability of

an individual to function to his or her own potential: it affects

health, nourishment, education, life style and, ultimately, selfrespect

and the ability to contribute meaningfully to a



Ultimately, inequality of opportunity creates personal

challenges that expand into disasters of national and global

proportions. Recent economic crisis had begun in the

wealthiest nations, but their most severe impact has been

on the poorest economies. Fifty years ago, Africa was a net

exporter of food; today it imports one-third of its grain. Tonight

roughly 900 million people will go to bed hungry: more than

the population of the United States and the European Union

combined. Another example is the brain drain: more than

two-thirds of medical doctors that graduate in Ghana and

Zimbabwe emigrate – primarily to the UK – within five years.

At this moment there are more Ethiopian doctors practicing

medicine in Chicago than in all of Ethiopia.

This is but a small sampling of these impacts; yet it illustrates

why we must no longer view wealth inequality as a set of

sterile economic figures. The effects of poverty are real; they

are human. Correcting inequality does not equate by any

means to anti-capitalism, it requires a thoughtful strategy and

cooperation on a global scale, but we must begin by facing up

to the facts and the truths.

Step 4:

We must acknowledge the unequal value we

are placing on human life.

Two weeks ago Reuters reported on fifteen children who

had crossed as refugees from Central African Republic into

Cameroon, but were so malnourished that they died upon

arrival. Let me pose a question: What value should we place

on the lives of fifteen African children How does this compare

to the value we would assign if these had been fifteen

malnourished German or American children, fleeing a scene

of brutality How would the news coverage be different

Millions of human lives are lost to armed conflicts, hunger

and disease; but the global response to those deaths – the

emotional reaction, the press coverage and the willingness

to dedicate funding to fix the situation – depends on who

is dying and where the deaths occur. For example, despite

enormous death toll in the recent armed conflict in Congo

and Darfur, the international community did little more than

wring its hands, because those locations had little so-called

“strategic value”. Throughout the Iraq war we knew exactly

how many US and other coalitions soldiers had been killed, but

no one bothered to keep more than the vaguest telling of the

Iraqi civilians who lost their lives. And as far as for the fifteen

refugee children from Central African Republic, the United

Nations strategic response plan for the crisis in that country

has to date received only one-fifth of the $550 million needed.

Yet the global budget for military spending annually stands

at 1.7 trillion dollars. The problem therefore is not a case

of insufficient funds. We have the money to address these

tragedies. Nor is the problem in our shared core values. The

crux of the matter is in the blinkered or skewed way we apply

those values. The results can be predicted in our budgets. The

value we place on human life is unequal depending on whose

life it is.

Step 5:

We must redefine human security and place

more emphasis on “soft power”.

Inequity and insecurity are our two greatest global challenges.

Understood properly, they are the two sides of the same coin.

Poverty is frequently linked to a lack of good governance.

The lack of good governance is tied to multiple problems:

corruption, denial of social justice and political freedom,

scarcity of economic opportunity and failure of the rule of law.

These breakdowns produce loss of hope, a sense of injustice


and radicalization – which in turn can fuel civil wars and inters

t a t e c o n fl i c t s .

Ironically, we have been witnessing the ineffectiveness of

military power in the face of these interconnected global

insecurities. The United States, the world's only superpower,

maintains a military force that cannot be matched on land,

sea or sky. Yet the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have

dragged on for years. Despite vastly superior firepower and

enormous financial expenditures, victory has been elusive.

engage in dialogue. I am troubled by the reluctance of many

leaders to talk to certain adversaries unless preconditions are

met. Dialogue and diplomacy are the most meaningful tools

for conflict resolution and reconciling differences. This is

something we need to remember in these days.

Step 6:

We must reform our dysfunctional international

institution and governance mechanism.

When we understand the nature of the insecurities facing

our globalized human family we also realize it is time to reevaluate

our traditional reliance on military power. Smart

bombs cannot feed the hungry. Tanks and missiles cannot

fight disease or solve the unequal distribution of wealth. And

as we have recently seen in Egypt, armies are ill-suited to

correct a lack of good governance.

Instead, many of us now are advocating the exercise of more

“soft power”, the non-military attributes that make a country

a prominent actor on a global stage. As American political

scientist Joseph Nye has stated, “A country has more soft

power if its culture, values and institutions incite admiration

and respect in other parts of the world”. Many wellestablished

democracies like Germany have a broad array of

these attributes ready to export freedom of speech, economic

and social dynamism. Frameworks to ensure the rule of law.

Advanced science and technology. These attributes are the

envy of oppressed and impoverished societies worldwide. If

wealthy countries put half as much creativity and resources

into “soft power” – spreading these instruments of peace and

progress – as they spend on weapons of war, our world would

be much more secure in every sense. The return on investment

would be immediate.

Coupled with these cultural values should be the willingness to

At the 2005 World Summit in New York, the United Nations

hosted the largest number of heads of states ever convened.

High on the agenda was a newly articulated norm, the

“Responsibility to Protect”. This norm asserted that a state's

sovereignty must be considered not only a right but also a

responsibility to protect its people against major violations

of human rights: genocide, crimes against humanity, war

crimes and ethnic cleansing. The norm further asserted that

if a state fails to protect its people from these atrocities,

the international community has the responsibility to use

appropriate humanitarian and other peaceful means. And if

those are inadequate it must take stronger measures including

collective use of force, authorized by the UN Security Council.

But norms are only as meaningful as an institution that translates

them into action. The years since have seen several instances

in which the “Responsibility to Protect” has been invoked,

such as in Darfur, Kenya, Libya, Côte d'Ivoire, Yemen, Mali,

Sudan, South Sudan and Central African Republic. Generally,

however, the intervention by the international community

is usually quite late, and it should be most effective when

applied at the earliest stage when humanitarian assistance is

needed, when peaceful resolutions are possible. Yet in most

cases Security Council waits to intervene until the use of force

has become necessary or possibly the only option.



What is worse is that intervention has been grossly inconsistent

in the past couple of decades: Inaction in places like Rwanda

and Syria, where the mass slaughter of civilians has taken place

or continues to take place; forceful action in Iraq and Serbia,

but without a Security Council mandate demanded of the

Security Council as in the case of NATO action in Libya. To

be effective, the “Responsibility to Protect” must have precise

definition, criteria and modalities, and cannot be subject to

the whims of the P5, the members of the council with veto

power. Too often unfortunately the UN Security Council

enacts a parody of its intended function offering nothing but

handwringing, rhetoric, and political squabbles.

The same standard of accountability must also be applied

across the board. The Security Council has been effective in

referring thirteen cases to the International Criminal Court,

such as those in Sudan and Libya; but it has been utterly

silent on atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is

selective justice: if the perpetrator has friends in high places

– essentially in the P5 – the standards do not apply. Currently

the International Criminal Court is considering eight cases: all

are African.

These inconsistent standards are also apparent in how

resources are committed to a given United Nations action.

Under the UN Charter, in 1945 member states committed to

make armed forces available under a special agreement with

the Security Council: however, no single country for the last

70 years has concluded such an agreement until today. Thus,

in some engagements, such as Afghanistan, the operation

is well-supplied with forces and equipment through NATO,

because of their perception of the “strategic value” by a

major power. In other cases, such as Darfur, the UN has been

compelled to rely on African forces that are short on numbers

and equipment.

Similarly, when we consider the “soft power” and the use of

dialogue and diplomacy for conflict resolution it is clear that

such instruments are most effective when wielded collectively

with countries working together through international

institutions such as the United Nations and its agencies.

But here again, these agencies cannot be effective unless

its member states are willing to equip it with the necessary

resources and authority. On the humanitarian front, for

example, the UN is currently almost begging for $12.9

billion to deal with humanitarian catastrophes, if I recall in 52

countries and dealing with 17 million people. But they have

difficulty in securing the funding – which equates to one-half

of one percent of what countries are spending on armament.

It is time, in my view, to reform these dysfunctional institutions.

We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting different

results. The Security Council, in particular, must have the

structure, authority and resources needed to respond to

threats to international peace and security solely on the basis

of human solidarity, irrespective of the geopolitical interest

of any individual member state. Similarly, the humanitarian

institutions of the United Nations must be granted both the

authority and resources to ensure the dignity of every human

being by meeting basic needs – nutritious food, clean water,

sanitation, health care and education – when the state fails to

do so. As a member of the human family we can accept no

lesser standard.

Step 7:

We must put technology to work

in the service of development.

At the outset I mentioned a number of recent advances

in science and technology. We are living in an era of

unprecedented progress in medicine – information technology,

biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many other fields; yet

we seem incapable of harnessing these advances to make

our world more peaceful and humane. Innovation, invention

and entrepreneurship are keywords close to the top of every

national agenda in the industrialized world; but relatively little


esearch, funding or venture capital is focused on solving the

challenges of the developing world – related, for example, to

microgrid-scale energy generation, or to small-scale water

purification, or to inexpensive medical solutions to infectious

diseases. In fact, we regularly witness examples of advanced

technologies being misused to encroach on our basic values –

such as high-tech wiretapping methods that violate the right

to privacy.

Consider the medical arena. Successful anti-retroviral

treatment regimens have been developed for HIV/AIDS, but

they are largely inaccessible to the poor and therefore mostly

irrelevant as a solution to the tragic toll that AIDS continues

to take across Africa. As a director of UNAIDS told the human

rights council early last year, ”It is outrageous that …when

we have all the tools to address this epidemic, more than 1.7

million people will die this year in 2013 because they do not

have access to treatment.” In low- or middle-income countries,

out of 29 million of eligible patients, only 9 million will receive


Once again, we come back to the disparity between our

forward-thinking values, which are shared across the human

family, and our narrowly focused behaviors as individuals,

corporations and governments. It is not that we want our

fellow human beings to starve or live in suffering. It is that we

are so immersed in the priorities of the moment that we miss

the big picture.

Step 8:

We must abolish nuclear weapons.

As we focus technology innovations more broadly on solving

the challenges of the development, the return on the

investment will be rapid and obvious. This, in turn, will make

clear the wastefulness and futility of investing in ever more

powerful weapons and maintaining arsenals of weapons of

mass destruction.

The abolition of nuclear weapons unfortunately is not a

fashionable topic today. Yet it should be evident that with the

spread of advanced science and technology, as long as some

countries choose to rely on nuclear weapons, others will seek

to acquire them. Human security, I would reiterate, is not a

zero sum game.

It is imperative that no more countries acquire these deadly

weapons. But to that end, it is equally imperative that nuclearweapon

states accelerate their nuclear disarmament efforts.

This, in turn, demands national security policies that reduce

the strategic role given to these weapons. And nuclear

weapons should have no room in our doctrine of collective

security. It is nothing short of madness that – nearly a quarter

of a century after the end of the Cold War – we still have more

than 17,000 nuclear weapons, more than 4,000 in operational

status and 2,000 in high alert status: ready to go in less than

half an hour.

How does Iran fit into this equation Iran's nuclear program

has been a dominant headline for more than a decade. Nuclear

weapons – in the Middle East and elsewhere – have long been

seen as conveying power and prestige and insurance against


Iran's determination to master nuclear technology in my

view has been driven by the desire to be recognized as an

important regional power. As we have begun to witness lately,

the Iran nuclear issue can be resolved – not by threats and


intimidation, nor by name-calling or accusations, but through

dialogue and negotiation. Recent dialogue with direct

interaction between Iran and the United States is a welcome

step forward. The grievances and mistrust between these two

countries has accumulated over 50 years. As progress is made

towards resolving the mistrust surrounding Iran's nuclear

program more opportunities will arise to chart a new course

based on reconciling differences across a broader spectrum.

Step 9:

We must put economics to work

in the service of all humanity.

For centuries, humans have understood the economics of how

to make war profitable, of how to exploit the poor and the

less powerful for profit. This model is no longer sustainable.

It is time for a new approach to global economics, focusing

explicitly on achieving prosperity through peace.

The first practical area for strategic change involves a rebalancing

of government R&D budgets. Innovations follow

investment. If all wealthy governments continue to spend

ten times more money on armament and defense than they

do on humanitarian aid, this will influence where investors,

corporations and research universities put their money and

effort. But if the same government were to sponsor R&D on

the most costly challenges of developing societies the result

would be the creation of new technologies, the opening of

new industries and new markets and, ultimately, a revolution

in how we approach the cost of humanitarian aid.

The second area for economic innovation lies in harnessing

the untapped potential of human capital in developing

countries. These are highly motivated populations, many

with a disproportionately high percentage of young people.

In Egypt, for example, 50 per cent of the population is under

25. More than ever before, television and internet access

have provided these young people with a window to the

world. They are hungry for the opportunities they know exist

elsewhere. Smart corporate investment in high-tech skills

training, in ICT infrastructure, in seed funding and supportive

environment for entrepreneurs, can tap into this population

and yield a high return.

The third area for economic innovation is in helping emerging

democracies create the institutions and mechanisms for

good governance. This is a far smarter strategic investment

than selling weaponry or providing military aid to these

countries. By jump-starting a process of social and economic

development – exporting “soft power” as I said earlier – we

will create stable, reliable partners that will also be markets

and pools for talent for our companies. Generosity of this sort

is not an act of charity, it is an investment in our own survival.

Step 10:

We must reeducate ourselves and most of all

educate the young in the arts of peace.

Each of the nine steps I have outlined so far involve some

elements of re-education with practical strategic benefits.

Education is key. Curiosity and belief in the power of learning

is central to what makes us human. With the rapid pace of

change we are experiencing, a global reeducation program

along these lines will enable us to solve our insecurities as one

human family.

Above all we must educate our youth. Ensuring a solid primary

and secondary education for boys and girls in the poorest

countries is vital if they are to be lifted out of poverty. Current

efforts to ensure universal education are far from adequate.

UNESCO's latest report on global education says that if current

trends continue it will take until 2072 until the poorest young

women in developing countries are literate. This cannot stand.



On the positive side, we are witnessing many efforts to reinvigorate

and re-imagine a global approach to education.

My alma mater, New York University, is running a global

education campus in Abu Dhabi. Every year they take in a

new batch of roughly 200 students drawn from more than

fifty countries based solely on merit. Some come from abject

poverty with all expenses paid by the United Arab Emirates.

The idea is to bring these young people together, to develop

truly multicultural and global perspective for their roles as

future leaders. The NYU President, Joseph Sexton, tells me that

in just a few short years, the results have been amazing. Efforts

such as these give us hope.

Education pays multigenerational dividends. We cannot afford

any more lost generations. In conclusion, the challenges we

face are bigger than any single country, conflict, or issue. We

are engaged in a struggle for the heart of humanity. What

kind of world do we want to leave to our children What are

the values, the institutions, the protocols of governments, the

behaviors and mindset that will enable our global society to

achieve an enduring peace

The solutions are within reach – because the solutions

are within us. No matter how formidable the challenge, a

sustained investment in human security is an investment in

our collective future as one human family.

Thank you.



Schools competition

Saxon schoolchildren invited to an ideas competition

The Nobel Peace Prize is an accolade awarded for a lifetime's

work. Individuals or organisations are honoured for inspiring

acts which have had an outstanding effect on peaceful

fraternity between the world's peoples. Looking back, the

prize is a recognition of achievement; looking forward, it is

an obligation.

on this issue prior to the speech. The goal is not only to send

out a special invitation to young people to the Frauenkirche

to attend the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's speech, but also

to give them the chance to participate in a political discourse

eye to eye with well-known politicians, at this historical site of

injury and reconciliation.

Schoolchildren want to shape their lives, and school education

plays a key role in that. The theme of sensitivity for peace

issues can be developed in various school subjects. As a

rule, young people think and communicate on a worldwide

level, and at the same time face the challenge of shaping

their personal environment in a meaningful and peaceful

manner. The experience of your personal commitment

being recognised and having effects which go far beyond

your personal environment is precious. Among other things,

schoolchildren very often base their goals on personal role

models. Information can be passed on more lastingly when it

is connected to emotions. In this context, personal esteem and

human contact play a crucial role. It is thus no great leap for

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates to come into direct contact with

young people. Ideally, both parties will gain a great deal from

this encounter.

In cooperation with the Saxon State Ministry of Cultural

Affairs, the Frauenkirche Foundation has set up a competition

for schoolchildren on a theme to accompany the speech of

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, bringing

it up to date in line with the situation of young people today.

A world without nuclear weapons: an illusion, or a duty for the

world's young generation Encouraged by the Nobel Peace

Prize Laureate, school classes and small working groups worked

The prize for the winning groups was deliberately not of

material, but instead of symbolic value: a day at Dresden

Frauenkirche, giving them the chance to experience the

history and message of this church in a special format; opening

up opportunities to meet other schoolchildren and their ideas;

eating and learning together, and creatively working out the

questions and interests they wanted to explore that evening

in an exclusive discussion with the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

The young people's wishes and ideas concerning a

peaceful future were collected in a transparent globe, the

“WishfullWorld”, where they will remain for years to come

on display in the Frauenkirche, as a legacy. The children were

personally acknowledged by the high-ranking panel and the

Saxon premier, paving the way for a mutually appreciative,

interested conversation between the Nobel Peace Prize

Laureate and the winning groups of schoolchildren. The

intimate format of a private two-hour discussion in the lower

church immediately before the public speech in the main

body of the Frauenkirche opened up the exclusive opportunity

to get to know Dr ElBaradei not only as a political figure, with

the background of his life's work, but also as a person just like

you and me, with hopes, disappointments and ideals.

Holger Treutmann Reverend of the Frauenkirche


The winning entries

for the schools


One hundred and twenty-five participants followed the call by

the Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation to take part in the peace

competition “schoolchildren meet Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

at Dresden Frauenkirche”. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei asked,

“A world without nuclear weapons: an illusion, or a duty

for the world's young generation” and called upon the

schoolchildren to grapple intensively with this topic, presenting

their wishes, fears, ideas and proposed solutions. Dresden's

Frauenkirche Foundation received entries in the form of films,

audio dramas and school newspapers, among other things.

The three panel members praised the level of commitment

among entrants and the high quality of their entries. They

particularly emphasised the creativity with which the

schoolchildren presented on one hand the reasons why people

want nuclear weapons, and on the other the consequences

which the possession of such weapons have on international

safety, not forgetting what might happen if they were used.

In contrast with the thinking of the 1980s, the schoolchildren

not only took a European perspective but also addressed the

global aspects of nuclear weapons spreading (or failing to do

so) and how they can be controlled. Of the thirteen group

entries, the panel named three equal winners who dealt with

the competition topic in an outstanding manner. As well as

the Federal Government Commissioner for Disarmament and

Arms Control, Antje Leendertse, the other panel members

were Herbert Wolff, Secretary of State at

the Saxon State Ministry of Cultural Affairs,

and Dr Oliver Meier, Scientific and Political

Foundation at the German Institute for

International and Security Affairs.

Peace, not war”

On the road to a world without nuclear weapons

Victoria Lê, Livia Koenitz, Charlotte Bäcker, Hannes Lienig,

Silvia Dietze, Anna Dorothea Uschner, Sophia Lehne, Nora

Hartmann, Oleksiy Bezugly, Jenny Steinert, Mei Yang,

Stefanie Pusch (teacher) – Dresden-Plauen high school

The eleven young people covered the topic in a special

issue of a fictional youth magazine entitled “The Road”.

First, they dealt with the history and current global location

of nuclear weapons, before going on to carry out a survey

and activities at their school open day to draw attention to

the topic and form opinions. In their explanation of why the

entry had won, the panel wrote: “The magazine stands out

positively for its factual accuracy, professional design and the

thoroughly nuanced way in which it deals with the subject of

the competition. It is an excellently researched, extremely well

thought-out issue which inspires interest in the topic among

young people (and others).”



Posting theses

“It's your


For a future without nuclear weapons

Adrian Laugsch, Valentin Gies, Daniel Hofmann, Pia Weigel,

Helena Kieß – Protestant School of the Holy Cross

Milena Hauser, Henriette Weiß, Charlotte Pech,

Victoria Tost – Protestant School of the Holy Cross

The entry comprised a film performance and a corresponding

essay, and envisioned as its subject ten fundamental theses.

The panel unanimously agreed that, “Boldly and daringly, ten

theses tell of a more peaceful world of safety, and freedom

from the atomic threats to the existence of mankind.”

“As well as the very soundly argued pamphlet, which reveals

and registers the longings, appeals, reflections and demands of

the young generation, the schoolchildren have entered a film

version of their words, which, in their expressive symbolism,

amount almost to an apocalyptic outcry.” Another feature

praised was the outstanding film music by 15-year-old Adrian

Laugsch, one of Saxony's youngest composers.

Explaining their choice, the panel stated that “Above all, the

entry brings up the question of the dilemmas we face, whether

the world is without nuclear weapons or holds onto them.

This sophisticated analysis, which offers some surprises for the

viewers, combined with the challenge to viewers to decide

for themselves which world is the better, is likely to produce

more long-lasting commitment to nuclear disarmament

than are stark warnings against nuclear war.” The young

people entered a short film which used a historical overview

of the development of nuclear weapons to sketch out some

alternative future scenarios.



Young people experience

the Frauenkirche

What impression did the schoolchildren from the schools competition gain of the Frauenkirche

“I hear a sound made of many sounds: peace, peace where

God resides” – the final words of the poem fade away. Written

by Christian Lehnert in 2003 for the Peace Bell, Isaiah, they

marked the consecration of the new Frauenkirche bells.

The young people stand closely packed in the two narrow

belfries, facing the bells, whose names and decorations

indicate their liturgical function. One of the many discoveries

the schoolchildren have made on their way through the

Frauenkirche is why the church's eight-bell peal is made up

not only of seven new bells but also of an almost five-hundredyear-old

memorial bell.

Their route starts out in the lower church, the Room of Silence.

Once a burial place, a church cellar and a refuge in times of

war, this sparingly designed sacred space shows visible signs

of existential subjects such as death and resurrection, war

and destruction, injury and healing. The exploration of the

Frauenkirche offers a chance to enter the silence of this space,

becoming quiet yourself, turning your attention to the old

and new stones side by side and the message they convey; to

read the words of eye witnesses remembering the bombing

of Dresden, to consciously appreciate the meaning of modern

design elements and, finally, to raise your own voice in a song

which fills this simple, bare stone room with living sounds. The

aim is to allow people to encounter the Frauenkirche and its

inherent message individually, making this the right place for

a speech by a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

visitors walking about looking at the church, sitting lost in

contemplation or talking to a volunteer church guide acting as

their host, or up to the painted panels on the inner dome – or,

of course, across to the altar. After a few introductory words

on historical background facts, and why the church interior

is Protestant theology made in stone, we move a level down

and up close to the broken altar on the singers' gallery. Of the

many images before us, our attention focuses on the central

altar scene, where the destruction of war has been deliberately

left in place, for example on the figure of Judas and where

a second glance reveals the “scars of healed wounds”. The

memories and reminders these scars represent are repeated in

the old cross standing in the main body of the church. Before

the discovery tour continues, there is an invitation to light a

prayer candle later that day at the old cross: in remembrance

… This is followed by the visit to the belfries, then a climb to

the viewing platform.

Like the view this provides across Dresden and out into the

distance, the message of the Frauenkirche, too, crosses the

borders of time and space into a future world for which the

young people of today will take very special responsibility. In

their award-winning entries, the schoolchildren have shown

to great effect that they are ready to bear this responsibility.

From the lower church we go up to the church interior,

the main stage for life in the Frauenkirche during services,

concerts, speeches and open church times. The second

gallery offers a view over this space, either down to the day

Anja Häse

Dr Anja Häse has been in charge of Dresden's Frauenkirche

Foundation visitor service since 2002.


“So they do still exist – fearless and brave people; people

with a vision: the meeting with Mohamed ElBaradei gave me

a feeling of euphoria but also made me thoughtful.

Sometimes, in your everyday routine, you seem to lose the

overview, getting caught up in trivialities instead of facing up

to the great global problems with prescience, wisdom and

tenacity, as the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate chooses to do

day after day. What especially impressed me was his downto-earth

nature, telling us that at the moment he was told he

had won the coveted prize, he was wearing pyjamas, and his

love for humanity, which he revealed as the motive behind his actions in many things he said.

For me, the dome of the Frauenkirche became the canopy of a fairer and more peaceful world

when ElBaradei announced what he was calling for on the evening of that day of moments of

peace. March the 18th: to me, that is a day which has burned itself deep into my memory, and

an encounter with a hero.” Helena Kieß

“In my opinion the day in the Frauenkirche was a great

success. Apart from the events connected to the

competition, what I liked especially was the guided tour

of the Frauenkirche. It taught you things that you don't

find out as a ‘normal’ tourist. I thought the evening speech

was very clearly presented, as ElBaradei put forward so

many arguments. What I found particularly persuasive was

when he showed that not only governments and high-up

institutions can bring about change. Every one of us is able

to stand up against nuclear weapons.” Sophia Lehne

“I am pleased that I took part in this project. It led me

to explore the topic of nuclear weapons in detail and

engage with the topic for the first time. In this context,

for me, the church represented a place of both peace

and strength. The meeting with the Nobel Peace Prize

Laureate which took place that day was one of the

highlights.” Livia Koenitz

“Arriving in the Room of

Silence was something very

special for me. First of all

we had the chance to calm

down, then we were allowed

to test out the room's

acoustics by practising and

then singing an old hymn.

The conversation was the

most exciting part. We had

the chance to discuss the topic

of nuclear weapons with the

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

A great honour! The

conversation also gave

me a new view. ElBaradei

encouraged us to stand up

against nuclear weapons. He

made it clear to us that we

finally need to do something,

as it is high time we did. It

impressed me that he was

planting the seeds of hope

in a group of totally normal

children, and travelled here

especially to spur us on.”

Mei Yang


“As I had never even set foot in the Frauenkirche until that day,

though I am from Dresden, I personally have especially strong

memories of the moments in the belfry and – despite the wind –

out on the dome, which definitely had something to do with all

the interesting, sometimes historical information. The discussion

with the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei was

definitely a unique experience for everyone listening, or even

asking questions. The comment that our world's future lies in

the hands of young people particularly reinforces my views.”

Silvia Dietze

“The guided tour of the Frauenkirche was lovely, and something

really special for me, as I'd never been in the Frauenkirche before.

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate held a wonderful speech,

which once more pointed to the most important aspects for

making the world more peaceful. His speech showed me again

that everyone in the community has to do something if we

are to get a step closer to our aim of a world without nuclear

weapons. All in all, it was an unforgettable day that I would not

swap for anything.” Nora Hartmann

“I thought that the day of the prize-giving, the discussion and the

speech were great. It's actually the first event I've attended where

reality exceeded my expectations. The discussion was even more

important than the speech, as everything was shorter, easier to

understand and more direct than in the speech. The idea of ‘if

the USA can carry out global surveillance today, then lots of other

people will be able to do it tomorrow’ is the most important thing

I feel I've got out of the discussion, as my motivation even at the

start of the project was to be able to ask someone who really has

been under close surveillance what they think of it; what it feels

like to discover that you were being watched. ElBaradei‘s ideas that our thinking has to become

more peaceful for something to change in the world really gave me food for thought: we really do

think more about war than about peace. And there are more media covering war than covering

peace. It remains to be seen whether that can change.” Aljoscha Bezugly

“I got to know the Frauenkirche

that day both as a retreat and

as a space in which to meet

all kinds of different people,

but more than anything else I

experienced it as a place with a

history which serves as a

warning to us that we need to

establish and maintain peace.

Meeting ElBaradei in person and

being able to ask him questions

and listen to him was an

unforgettable experience for

me, and will stay that way.

I find it hard to say exactly

what was so special about that

day. All the places we visited

together at the Frauenkirche

the Room of Silence, the

galleries, the bells and finally

the dome – and the time we

were able to spend with the

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate all

left such an impression on me

with their unique nature and


Anna Dorothea Uschner


Additional incentives to the

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's lecture

Secretary of State David Gill, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, and Professor Dr. Volker Perthes

on the occasion of a formal dinner following the lecture:

Secretary of State David Gill

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the last 15 years, a remarkable number of Nobel Peace Prize

Winners were international organizations, such as the United

Nations (2001), the European Union (2012) or, most recently,

the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

(2013). Out of all the 126 Nobel Peace Prizes that were

awarded since 1901, 25 went to international, governmental

and non-governmental organizations. Two organizations,

namely the International Committee of the Red Cross and the

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, were even

awarded the prize several times.

I find these facts rather interesting since they show that those

international organ izations were and are obviously considered

to be the main contributors to international peace – at least

during the time they were awarded the prize. I find it also

remarkable that the percentage of organizations that were

awarded the prize as opposed to individuals seems to have

increased in recent times. One could conclude that, recently,

collective efforts to promote peace and security were more

efficient and successful than individual efforts.

This conclusion, of course, could only be partly true since all

collective measures need individuals to initiate, to decide on

and to implement them.

It is for this reason that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee

sometimes not only awarded the organization itself with

a prize, but ad personam, also the main individual behind

it, like tonight's guest of honor, Dr ElBaradei, who led the

International Atomic Energy Agency for 12 years from 1997

until 2009.

We cannot deny that in our times, states are confronted with

challenges that they often cannot solve themselves anymore.

Multilateralism therefore seems to me more important

than ever before. In some cases states need international

organizations as a forum to cooperate. In other cases states

voluntarily become members of international organizations as

a trust-building measure. Multilateral cooperation in Europe

has become a guarantor for peace and security.

The success of multilateralism, though, finally relies on

the initiatives and willingness of states. It was in this spirit

that President Gauck also asked Germany to make “a more

substantial, an earlier and a more decisive contribution”


It is a sad truth that some states still prefer unilateral actions

and abuse the powers they have in the UN system. 2014 is the

“year of remembrance”: we will remember sad occasions like

the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, or the

75th anniversary of the start of World War II, but also happy

occasions like the fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years ago. President


Gauck's agenda this year will focus to a significant degree on

the remembrance of these historical dates. However, when we

planned his agenda for this historical year we did not image

how relevant it would become these days to deal with and

learn from our history, raise awareness of the past and thereby

to contribute to stability, security and peace in Europe and the

world. I sincerely hope that the current crisis in and around the

Ukraine can be solved in a peaceful manner.

I believe that the new series of events “Nobel Peace Prize

Winners in the Frauenkirche” that was launched today with

Dr ElBaradei's speech will help to raise awareness that peace

cannot be taken for granted, but has to be actively maintained

and cared for. I am sure that the answers to the guiding

question “What do we have to do today to make tomorrow's

world more peaceful” will be full of visionary but also very

concrete result-oriented measures and suggestions. The

speeches and discussions we will hear, like today's, will bring

back the important contributions and achievements of former

Nobel Peace Prize Winners to our collective memory and will

give us a chance to reflect on them and use them as a source

of inspiration for current and future action. It will also make

visible innovative ideas of Nobel Peace Prize Winners and it

will – maybe – even create future Nobel Peace Prize Winners.

There couldn't be a better environment for reflection and

inspiration than the Frauenkirche in Dresden as a symbol of


partner. I sincerely hope that your country, Egypt, will master

its difficult transitional phase.

Thank you for your attention.

Secretary of State David Gill

Secretary of State David Gill is the head of

the Office of the Federal President.

Your Excellency, dear Dr ElBaradei,

It is almost exactly 4 years ago that you received the

Bundesverdienstkreuz in Schloss Bellevue for your role as a

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency

and for your successful efforts to implement effective

multilateralism in this organization and beyond. Former

President Köhler in his speech called you a “visionary for a

family of humankind”. The world needs visionaries like you

and we Germans are glad to have you as a close friend and


Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger

Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for offering me an opportunity for some additional

thoughts on the economic perspective.

The countries of the Arab world have so far paid a heavy

economic price for their attempts to gain economic freedom.

The picture is particularly grim for the non-oil-exporting

countries in the region. In the five years before the Arab

uprisings, average GDP growth in these countries was over 5%.

Since then, it has been just 2 to 3%. That is roughly in line with

population growth, which means that average per-capita GDP

is stagnating. In reality, there are no average incomes. Stark

differences in income and wealth have contributed to the Arab

uprisings. These differences are not narrowing. Traditionally,

Arab governments have sought to counter these inequalities

through public job creation and generous subsidies for fuel

and other basic goods. They did so again after 2011, which

is why budget deficits have exploded to unsustainable levels.

In future, growth and job creation will have to shift back from

the public to the private sector. This is not happening at the

moment. Recorded unemployment in Tunisia has risen to

17% and in Egypt to over 13%. Youth unemployment is much

worse: at 25% across the region it is the highest in the world.

Although the youth bulge passed its peak almost 20 years ago,

millions are pushing onto the region's rigid and ill-functioning

labor markets each year. To absorb these new entrants, and

also the unemployed, the non-oil-exporting countries in the

region would have to create over 18 million full-time jobs over

the next decade (IMF estimate, 2012).

Limited influence of the European Union

and Germany

How can we help The European Union redesigned its

neighborhood policy at the time of the Arab uprisings. It

promised a “more for more” approach of increased aid, trade

liberalization and work and student visas. The EU summed this

approach up under the 3 Ms: money, markets and mobility.

Given that the EU's objectives were to support peaceful

political transition to democracy and balanced economic

growth, it is fair to say that this approach has not delivered.

But perhaps our expectations were inflated to start with.

The European countries have long been divided about how

to deal with their southern neighbors; the EU's resources for

influencing such a large number of different countries are

limited; and the euro crisis has made the EU feeble, inward

looking and less generous. Even stronger obstacles exist on

the other side of the Mediterranean. Unlike in Ukraine, the

people of Tunisia and Egypt did not go into the streets wearing

EU flags. New and self-confident Arab governments often see

EU conditionality as unwelcome interference. And they have

alternatives. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait have given

almost 14 billion dollar in assistance to Egypt. That allows

Egypt to say no to Western money and conditionality. Jordan,

Morocco and Tunisia have also received support from their

oil-exporting neighbors in the region. Algeria and Libya,

themselves oil and gas exporters, have massively expanded

their own government spending. EU money simply does not

buy change in this environment. Giving the MENA countries

better access to the European single market is a good idea –

although for most sectors, they already enjoy tariff-free access.

And that holds true even for 80% of agricultural goods. But

bilateral trade is asymmetric. For many countries in the region,

the EU is an important trading partner. But for us, the region is

not (yet) a key market. What is more promising perhaps, is the

direct engagement of German companies in the region. Over

80 German companies in Egypt employ over 24,000 people.

Some 250 German companies are in Tunisia, mostly members

of the German Mittelstand. And – unlike some of the French

and Italian companies there – they stayed put even during the

recent political turmoil. These companies can perhaps help to

build a more vibrant private sector, which brings me to my

last point.


Small enterprises are key

The Arab model of creating jobs on the public sector payroll

is no longer sustainable. Only private enterprise will be able

to take up the slack. Although there are lots of start-ups in

the region, these companies struggle to grow and create

employment. The business environment in Northern Africa is

not helping. It takes two months to set up a business in Libya

and getting connected to the electricity supply costs three

times the average salary. In Egypt, setting up a business can

be done in a week or two. But then your average entrepreneur

will spend almost 400 hours a year dealing with his tax bill and

over 1,000 hours trying to enforce contracts with his suppliers

and other business partners (World Bank Doing Business

database 2014). Governments are, if anything, a hindrance

to enterprise growth rather than a help. Corruption is one

problem. Tunisia is perceived to be the least corrupt country

in the region. But even Tunisia ranks 77th in the Transparency

International index, well below Cuba or Saudi Arabia. Morocco

and Algeria follow at places 91 and 94 with Egypt even worse

at 114.

Moreover, all governments have reacted to the turmoil of

2011 with increased public spending. Public borrowing is

crowding out private lending. Only 8% of bank credit goes

to smaller companies in the MENA region (World Bank/Union

of Arab Banks survey, 2011). It is therefore encouraging that

the European Union, through the EIB and the Commission's

budget, is now contributing to an SME financing facility that is

to bring up to 800 million euros in credit.

public sector, but by directly supporting private enterprises.

Majid Jafar, for instance, the CEO of Crescent Petroleum, has

called for a Marshall plan for the Arab world, financed by the

rich Gulf countries and spent on infrastructure projects. These

projects are to be realized by private enterprises or publicprivate


Conclusion: performance, not ideology

In the last couple of years, our focus was on political instability

and religious extremism. It is now time to redirect it to the

socio-economic underpinnings of successful political change.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Tunisia – the country with

the best economic data before 2011 – has also been the most

successful in its political transition so far. The way towards

balanced economic development will be long and hard.

Expectations are high. Governments are under extreme

pressure to deliver quick results. And of course, economic

growth and jobs are not sufficient conditions for successful

political transition but they are necessary ones. Events like this

one, where leaders like Mohamed ElBaradei can voice their

visions for peace and prosperity and encourage others to think

hard about it, are essential as we move forward. I hope that

this series of speeches here at the Frauenkirche – a symbol of

“rebuilding peace” from the ashes of war and conflict – will

over time become, as one might say, the “Lindau” for Nobel

Peace Prize Laureates.

SMEs need a well developed financial sector that can help them

invest and expand. They need more flexible labor markets,

non-corrupt and fast government services and efficient tax

systems. These are areas where the EU and Germany can do

more to help, through technical assistance, institution building

and strengthening of the financial sector. Another idea might

be to support those actors in the Arab world who would like

to bring positive change – not by encouraging an even bigger

Wolfgang Ischinger

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger has

been Chairman of the Munich Security

Conference since 2008.


Prof Dr Volker Perthes

Mr Landesbischof, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei,

Mr Ministerpräsident, Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Like Wolfgang Ischinger, I was asked to speak about the Middle

East and like Wolfgang Ischinger I find it difficult not to say a

few words about the current situation which we are witnessing

in the “much nearer” East than the Near and Middle East. I

will speak on the Middle East, but allow me to start with three

brief remarks on the situation in Ukraine.

I got a feeling in the last few days – and it refers a little bit to

what Wolfgang Ischinger just said – that some policy makers in

Russia, but not only in Russia, feel rather comfortable with the

prospect of a new Cold War. It seems simple – not as complex

as the interconnected, globalized, interdependent world in

which we are living – and some enjoy the idea that they know

how to operate it. They probably underestimate how difficult

the Cold War actually was. And the main reason may be that

policy makers do not like complexities very much. That is

something I guess you, Mohamed ElBaradei, have experienced

in your different positions, both as Director General of the

IAEO and as a policy maker – if only for a short time – in Egypt.

The second remark is that Ukraine is a country whose nuclear

weapons have been dismantled, which voluntarily gave up its

nuclear weapons. And now the country is dismantled. I do not

know what that means for the future of non-proliferation or

what it means for other countries. They might think that they

do need more security and more armament. And thirdly, the

current polarization or confrontation between Russia and the

West will impact the Middle East and certainly not in a positive

way. And it will impact our efforts to get the Middle East to

become a little bit more peaceful. That thought brings me just

in the middle of the subject I was asked to speak about.

Even though I said the confrontation between Russia and the

West will impact the Middle East, we should be very clear

that the turbulences which we have been experiencing in the

Middle East – at least since 2011 – have nothing to do with

Great-Power conflict. This is not about a Great-Power struggle.

It is essentially, it is basically a struggle inside societies or

between societies and authorities: a struggle against the old

authoritarian social contract, which does not work anymore.

It is a struggle for dignity, a struggle for justice, the struggle

of a whole generation for a fair share which they think and

which they have experienced that they do not get. And if

we want to speak about what needs to be done in order to

have a more peaceful world - or at least a more peaceful Arab

region and Middle East – than, of course, it is about economic

and social development, particularly for this young, strong

generation which is better educated, but has less chances, less

opportunities than their fathers. If this new generation does

not get its fair share, then we will have another two decades of

turbulence in the Middle East and all over the place. Not only

in Egypt, in Syria, or in Libya – the countries where we have

seen turbulences or even civil war – but also in countries that

have not been affected by these turbulences or seem not to

have been affected by these turbulences so far. Just consider, if

you could imagine, that Iran – or Saudi-Arabia for that matter –

still look the same as today in twenty years from now. Though

we cannot really imagine such a case, we do know even less

how they will change. Will there be reforms from above Will

there be no reforms and repression Will there be struggles,

civil war We cannot answer all of these questions right now,

but we know that these countries will look different from what

they do today. So we can assume that there will be a decade,

probably even two decades of turbulences ahead.

Let me just focus on one country here. A country that is very

dear to my heart, and that is Syria: It is the one country in the

Middle East region Mohamed ElBaradei has mentioned in his

lecture in the Frauenkirche an hour ago. I think we need to

speak about the conflict in Syria – not only because it is such a

humanitarian tragedy – but because Syria actually has become

pivotal for the development of the entire region. The longer

the war in Syria drags on, the more likely Syria will fragment


and there will be no one to put it back together ever again.

This does not only imply geopolitical consequences, it will

have – and I do not even know whether such a concept exists

– ”geocultural” consequences as well. Geopolitically, a lot of

things have been said about Syria and it is rather clear that a

Syrian fragmentation means a broader fragmentation, an end

of the Post-World War I or the Post-Ottoman order, at least of

the state system in the Arab East. The Syrian borders are already

evaporating. There are neither any more defined border lines

between Syria and the Iraq, nor between Syria and Lebanon.

And so we will most likely see a zone of disorder and a quite

different situation compared to the state system prevailing

there since the end of World War I. This time, there will be no

external powers to design and enforce a new regional order.

There will be no international intervention recreating a new

state order and the region will be left to itself. Whether that is

a good thing or not, you can decide for yourself. But beyond

politics, there is something I call the ”geocultural impact”

of the civil war in Syria. If Syria fragments, if it splinters into

pieces and warlord regimes, I fear that the very idea of a

multi-confessional and multi-ethnic state in the Middle East

will be gone. Syria was a quintessential multi-ethnic, multiconfessional

state. It has been very badly governed over the

last decades, but it remained multi-confessional. So if it should

fragment, there will be no multi-confessional state left in

the Arab East. What we will have, at best, is a form of rather

unequal tolerance against minorities. But tolerance is different

from citizenship. Tolerance does not entail equality, it implies

that one dominating creed or one dominating community

would allow others to be there and live there to a certain

extent. So can we end the war in Syria Of course the war can

and will end at some point in time, but if we want to bring

that about in a rather short time, there will have to be at least

a minimal consensus on three core aspects:

First, local, regional, and international decision-makers have

to realize that the current state system in the Arab East will be

preserved only by putting an end to the fighting in Syria. If

the war does not end, if it does not end soon, the state system

in the Arab East will fragment and splinter as well. Secondly –

and probably even more difficult – those who still want to

continue the fighting from inside or from the outside need to

realise that there is no way for any of the conflicting parties

of Syria to achieve a military victory and to preserve the state

at the same time. A military victory might be achievable in

certain parts of the territory, in parts of the country, but you

cannot gain a military victory and preserve the state as it is at

the same time. Last but not least: While it is useful to continue

the mission of Lakhdar Brahimi as UN envoy and invite the

parties for a Geneva III Conference, we also have to realize

that such a focus on government-opposition relations is stuck

and will not progress unless it is supported by some form of

societal dimension, unless we also have a gathering of credible

representatives of the Syrian people of all different regions

somewhere outside the country. Different regions imply

different creeds and different ethnicities coming together

under some form of mediation. I guess Martti Ahtisaari could

be the person to bring such a group together and to lead that

necessary mediation. He has some experience in mediation

and it is now that his professional skills are in dire need: The

different Syrian interest groups need to come together and

discuss if they still want to live together in one country and

on which constitutional basis this country could be rooted

upon. This process would need to be accompanied by parallel

agreements, both between the United States and Russia and

between Saudi Arabia and Iran to make it work. To reach

these flanking treaties seems to get more difficult from week

to week. That does not mean to give up and I would be a

lousy policy advisor if I were to say, ”Well, don't bother, it does

not work anyway”. I think we should still try to make it work.

And therefore let me conclude with two recommendations

addressed to ourselves – ourselves being ”us in Germany”, ”we

in Europe” or ”we in the United Nations”, however you want

to define it:

The first recommendation is that we must not further

geopoliticise the conflict in Syria. This conflict in Syria is not


about us. It is not about us, Russia, Iran, or the Saudis winning.

It is about the need to share power to find an inclusive solution

and to end the killing. And for that – whether we like it or not

– we still need the cooperation with our Russian partners and

colleagues. We still need cooperation with Iran. It will be even

more difficult than it was a month ago. But it is still necessary.

The second recommendation is to continue something

Mohamed ElBaradei has been working on for a long time: We

need an even more serious effort to solve the conflict with

Iran about its nuclear program. I think we have achieved some

milestones over the last decade with a very diligent diplomacy

led by the Europeans, trying to get the Americans and other

stakeholders aboard. The situation will remain complicated,

probably because Russia might not truly be interested in

having Iran back on the world gas and oil market. Still, we

need to continue our efforts: We need to continue the bilateral

talks between Western powers and Iran. Because if we can

reach some form of understanding with Iran in this regard,

giving us at least some form of security about limitations

and transparency in the Iranian nuclear program, it might be

a little bit easier to solve some of the other conflicts in the

Middle East - including the one in Syria.

Thank you very much.

Prof Dr Volker Perthes

Director of the German Institute for

International and Security Affairs and

Executive Chairman of the Board of SWP


Dr Mohamed



Dr Mohamed ElBaradei was born in 1942 in Cairo. He earned

a degree in law from the University of Cairo, later gaining

a doctorate in international law at the New York University

School of Law. He started his diplomatic career in 1964 in

Egypt, serving in the Permanent Missions of Egypt to the United

Nations in New York and in Geneva, in charge of political, legal

and security policy issues. Among other things, he worked for

the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Security Council,

the Geneva Disarmament Conference, the UN Commission on

Human Rights, the World Health Organisation, the Organisation

of African Unity and the Arab League. From 1974 to 1978,

Dr ElBaradei worked as a legal adviser to the Egyptian Ministry

of Foreign Affairs. In 1989 he left the diplomatic service and

moved to the United Nations. He has lectured all over the

world on international law, international organisations, global

security, weapons control and the peaceful use of atomic

energy, and is the author of several publications.

From 1997 to 2009, Mohamed ElBaradei was Director General

of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which he

joined in 1984. In October 2005, Dr ElBaradei was awarded

the Nobel Peace Prize along with the International Atomic

Energy Agency, which he ran.

“This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work

of the IAEA and its Director General.”

In his native country, the Egyptian was the central figure of

the National Association for Change, a movement founded in

2010 by various oppositional politicians which worked towards

democratic reform. In September 2010, ElBaradei called for

a boycott on the upcoming parliamentary election in Egypt.

At the end of April 2012 he launched his own political party

named the “Constitution Party”. In July 2013, ElBaradei was

named Vice President of the Egyptian interim government,

but he resigned soon after, on 14 August 2013, giving as a

reason the attempt by the Egyptian government to solve the

political crisis in Egypt with violence.

In doing this, the Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo was

honouring the work carried out by the IAEA and their Director

General to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The prize

committee explained that the threat presented by nuclear

weapons should be met with broad international cooperation:


Nobel Peace Prize


2014 – 1970

2014 Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai

“for their struggle against the suppression of children

and young people and for the right of all children to


2013 Organisation for the Prohibition of

Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

“for its extensive efforts to eliminate

chemical weapons”

2012 European Union (EU)

“for over six decades contributed to the advancement

of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human

rights in Europe”

2011 Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee

and Tawakkol Karman

“for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women

and for women's rights to full participation in peacebuilding


2010 Liu Xiaobo

“for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental

human rights in China”

2009 Barack H. Obama

“for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen

international diplomacy and cooperation between


2008 Martti Ahtisaari

“for his important efforts, on several continents and

over more than three decades, to resolve international


2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.

“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater

knowledge about man-made climate change, and to

lay the foundations for the measures that are needed

to counteract such change”

2006 Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank

“for their efforts to create economic and social

development from below”

2005 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and

Mohamed ElBaradei

“for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being

used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear

energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest

possible way”

2004 Wangari Muta Maathai

“for her contribution to sustainable development,

democracy and peace”

2003 Shirin Ebadi

“for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She

has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of

women and children”

2002 Jimmy Carter

“for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful

solutions to international conflicts, to advance

democracy and human rights, and to promote

economic and social development”


2001 United Nations (U.N.) and Kofi Annan

“for their work for a better organized and more

peaceful world”

2000 Kim Dae-jung

“for his work for democracy and human rights in South

Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and

reconciliation with North Korea in particular”

1992 Rigoberta Menchú Tum

in recognition of her work for social justice and ethnocultural

reconciliation based on respect for the rights of

indigenous peoples”

1991 Aung San Suu Kyi

“for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human


1999 Médecins Sans Frontières

in recognition of the organization's pioneering

humanitarian work on several continents”

1998 John Hume and David Trimble

“for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the

conflict in Northern Ireland”

1997 International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)

and Jody Williams

“for their work for the banning and clearing of antipersonnel


1996 Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and José Ramos-Horta

“for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to

the conflict in East Timor”

1995 Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash Conferences on Science

and World Affairs

“for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear

arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to

eliminate such arms”

1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin

“for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East”

1993 Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk

“for their work for the peaceful termination of the

apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a

new democratic South Africa”

1990 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev

“for his leading role in the peace process which today

characterizes important parts of the international


1989 The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso

1988 The United Nations Peace-keeping Forces

1987 Oscar Arias Sánchez

1986 Elie Wiesel

1985 International Physicians for the Prevention

of Nuclear War

1984 Desmond Mpilo Tutu

1983 Lech Walesa

1982 Alva Myrdal and Alfonso García Robles

1981 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees

1980 Adolfo Pérez Esquivel

1979 Mother Teresa

1978 Mohammad Anwar Al-Sadat and Menachem Begin

1977 Amnesty International

1976 Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan

1975 Andrei Sakharov

1974 Seán MacBride and Eisaku Sato

1973 Henry A. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho

1972 No Nobel Prize was awarded in 1972.

1971 Willy Brandt

1970 Norman Ernest Borlaug


Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation would

like to thank you for your kind support:

Special thanks also go to all the staff and volunteers from the Frauenkirche, whose hard work played a key role in making this event


Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation

Georg-Treu-Platz 3 | 01067 Dresden | Germany

Tel. +49 (0) 351 65606-100 | Fax +49 (0) 351 65606-112

Publishing details

Published by Frauenkirche Dresden Foundation | Georg-Treu-Platz 3 | 01067 Dresden | Germany |

Managing directors: Rev. Sebastian Feydt | Dipl. rer. pol. Christine Gräfin von Kageneck | Rev. Holger Treutmann

Editor: Mandy Dziubanek

Text: Mandy Dziubanek, Grit Jandura (unless otherwise indicated)

Graphic design | production: THORN werbeagentur Leipzig

Photographs: Steffen Füssel, Grit Jandura (World of Wishes), Federal Government/Photographer: Steffen Kugler (Secretary of State David Gill)


More magazines by this user
Similar magazines